MARX’S LOST THEORY
The Politics of Nationalism in 1848
What do we talk about when we talk about nationalism? Too much, it would seem. One sociologist complains that ‘the scholarship on ethnicity, race, and nationalism has become unsurveyably vast’; a leading intellectual historian deems it ‘intolerably protean’.  Rogers Brubaker, ‘Ethnicity, Race, and Nationalism’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 35, 2009, p. 22; and J. G. A. Pocock, ‘Review of British Identities Before Nationalism by Colin Kidd’, The Scottish Historical Review, vol. 79, no. 2, October 2000, p. 262. In his recent primer, the British sociologist Anthony Smith—who is, amongst other distinctions, the chief bibliographer of nationalism studies—describes an intellectual sprawl rather like Los Angeles: ‘These debates are diffuse and wide-ranging. They concern not only competing ideologies of nationalism nor even just the clash of particular theories. They involve radical disagreements over definitions of key terms, widely divergent histories of the nation and rival accounts of the “shape of things to come”.’ Amongst the currently warring camps, Smith distinguishes ‘primordialists’, ‘perennialists’, ‘neo-perennialists’, ‘instrumentalists’ and ‘modernists’. (He might have added ‘constructivists’, ‘neo-Weberians’ and ‘neo-Beardians’ as well.) He describes himself meanwhile as an ‘ethno-symbolist’, investigating nationalism as the modernization of pre-existing cultural identities.  Anthony D. Smith, Nationalism, Cambridge 2010, p. 3. In the face of so many categorical elisions, conflicting typologies and incongruent disciplinary perspectives, nationalism studies is seemingly embalmed in what Clifford Geertz called a ‘stultifying aura of conceptual ambiguity’.  Clifford Geertz, ed., Old Societies and New States, New York 1963, p. 107.
Subscribe for just £45 and get free access to the archive
Please login on the left to read more or buy the article for £3
- Gopal Balakrishnan: The Abolitionist—1 Opening salvo of a two-part reconstruction of Marx’s intellectual passage through the Hegelian—then Ricardian—conceptual landscape of his early years, taking him to the threshold of his mature architectonics of capitalism as a mode of production. From a starting-point in the philosophical empyrean of the 1830s to a turning-point with the economic upturn of the early 1850s, the development of one sketch of an historical materialism to the brink of another.